Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Damn Right I'm Angry: Part Two

Conflating Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, of which I am not a fan, with atheism before the actual article even begins is just the tip of the iceberg. His depiction of atheists is nothing short of bigoted and disgusting. He's "The Jewish Philosopher"? I can't even find the philosophy under the pile of steaming shit that he excreted onto his site. I'm telling you this up front only because you're going to need those hip-high waders and possibly protection for your monitor before reading further.

He starts off with the claim that we cannot define what we mean by god when we say we don't believe in one. I have yet to see a theist who can give a coherent definition of their god, and they do believe in it. Projection, anybody? He claims that we don't mind the concept of a creator (which we do, mainly because it has no basis in factual data), but that we're terrified by the ever-looming punishment awaiting us from his loving god, and so we just pretend he doesn't exist. Let's turn this around-I propose that it is you doing the pretending. There is not a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous beliefs in some anthropomorphic voyeur with sadistic tendencies, but you are so terrified of the fact that one day you and everyone you love will simply cease to be. So, you just imagine that you're immortal so you don't have face the truth about life-there is no higher purpose other than what you assign to your life; there is no afterlife and you'll never see grandma again; sometimes life just sucks so learn to deal with it.

Atheists are also "invariably highly selfish people" and it's "impossible to find a well-documented case of an atheist who was kind, honest, sober, and sexually responsible." Of course, he also tries to covertly pull out the communism card as well. Where the fuck does this guy get off? What kind of statistical data can you present for your claims, Stein? We are all mean, lying, drunken nymphomaniacs, right? Well, chew on this for a minute-you are a bigoted asshole who can only validate his own beliefs by caricaturing those of others. One would expect more from a descendent of a group that once faced the same kind of prejudiced rhetoric.

He believes that science has disproven atheism with quantum mechanics and the Big Bang. First of all, the only way to disprove atheism is to prove theism. That certainly didn't happen with either of those scientific endeavors. He says that we "apparently don't depend on any evidence." Again, can anybody see how theists tend to project the shortcomings of their belief onto us? We don't need evidence to suspend belief in the supernatural! It is up to you to present the evidence that proves the existence of your imaginary friend! Apparently, Stein is even worse with science than he is with philosophy, and that is impressive.

Stein should familiarize himself with a recent Barna study that I referenced in a previous blog post before he makes the claim that there is a "linkage between pornography and atheism" that is evident in demographic studies and the fact that "The expansion of the Internet has made pornography more widely available and at the same time atheism seems to be becoming more popular." The difference in porn consumption by christians (there are no studies to my knowledge that focus on Jews) is negligible at best. This is another survey on christians and pornography that refutes his point. The only linkage between atheism and pornography is that we don't need to pretend to not have sexual urges, and we don't need to repent after we watch it.

He reiterates his hypothesis about our denial of god in this way:

Many people, especially young males leading secure lives in developed countries, feel no need for the comfort of religion. Furthermore, they are attracted to a very selfish, self-indulgent way of life, an attraction perhaps encouraged by viewing pornography. Therefore, in order to remove any feelings of guilt, they simply deny the existence of any divine judgment or afterlife.

That's not a non sequitor or anything. (/sarcasm) The excoriation continues with the piece de resistance-my favorite quote in the whole article. I'll let you savor it.

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is a symptom of narcissism and hedonism. Calling atheism a religion is like calling alcoholism a religion. It's a bad choice, a moral failing, perhaps a disease.

Now, for all of the criticism that we take for making the claim that theism should be considered a mental disorder, at least in some cases, we make the exception for the average person with the disclaimer that belief in god is still delusional, it just may not be causing that person any hardship at the present time. Here, we have a blanket statement on the moral character of every atheist. Not only does he clearly have no evidence to support his claim, but his false analogy is fallacious nonsense. Not to mention ignorant, asinine, and absolutely disgusting. If his assertion is true, why are less atheists in prison than our population would warrant? Why are atheistic societies healthier and have less violence and crime? When was the last time you saw an atheist suicide bomber, Stein?

His bigoted moronicism leads him to the conclusion that we deny reality, science confirms religion, and for the icing on the cake-atheism is akin to an addiction. If this is the product of "loving homes of an Orthodox Jewish community," I'll pass. The "brutal violence going on in secular neighborhoods" is an assertion unsupported by any factual evidence and apparently just pulled out of his ass along with the rest of this post. Have you ever been to Israel, Stein? I hear it's really peaceful there.

I try to limit my responses to more intellectual criticism and avoid this type of argument. Even D'Souza has never elicited a response like this one, but these two men are the personification of ignorant bigotry. Their vitriolic rhetoric exemplifies the stigma that atheists in this society still face, but ultimately, it says much more about their character than it does ours. And yet, they wonder why we seem angry.

Everybody's monitors ok?

Blog Info: READERS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO PROMOTE THIS BLOG ON THEIR SITE FOR ONE YEAR. Give Kelly a year and she'll give you major media theism debunked!

This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. All articles may be reprinted in any major media publication or any blog. All articles will be submitted by Kelly or an assistant to the major media outlet that initially published the story as well as to the author of the original piece(when possible). Reprints are encouraged in blogs and must link to source. Reprints in media will be thanked in our book, so please alert us if you repost any story. Media outlets may shorten articles if necessary without removing context. Upon completion, a book and documentary will be made about the year (ending Oct. 31, 2008) and our plight to have dishonest argumentation countered with rational and factual answers in the press. If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views. At the end of the year the writings will be given some bulk, some supporting citations, and edits from a publisher to be compiled in a book. The book will include a documentary DVD shot from Sapient's vantage point as he works alongside Kelly, asking her questions about the project as it moves along.

There is quite a difference between suspending belief and making a truth claim...

It is perfectly rational to disbelieve or dispute the existence of that which has not been proven to be true. Your particular god does not, and cannot, exist. He is logically incoherent and any religious statement regarding this being is factually meaningless. Could there be some god/gods or a supernatural realm of which we have no knowledge? Yes. Even so, if I said to you that pink unicorns exist, and you said that they don't, would it not be expected for me to prove my claim and thereby convince you that I am correct?

There is no rational or logical basis to make the claim "There is no God." Why? Because, to say "there is no God" is to say there is no power or being superior than myself. To say there is no power superior than oneself is to say you are the highest being in existence.

I can't speak for others, but for me, at least, "there is no god" is shorthand for "there is no god as described by the religions I am familiar enough with to comment on." This includes the Jweish/Christian/Muslim deity. I can say this because there are pretty consistent definitions of the nature of this god, and they are self-contradictory and contradictory to reason. You can approach the issue from numerous angles, from the internal inconsistency of the various holy books to the problem of evil, and beyond. So, please read "your god doesn't exist" into it if you see me write that to you.

This means there is no way to make any truth claim including the claims that say: "There is no God" and "The universe happened by chance."

Those are two very different statements, which I suspect are equivalent in your mind. There is a world of difference between chance and the results of mindless physical processes. I don't think the universe is merely a product of chance, nor do I think a diety is required to bootstrap it to it's current form.

If God does exist, the only way to know is to meet Him. I have met God. I know Him. I don't believe God exists. I know God exists. But don't take my word for it. Go meet Him for yourself. You can't find Him unless you honestly seek Him as God.

Ahh, the classic challenge. I spent the majority of my life attempting to do just that. You'll notice that I'm not posting on the theist side. If your god exists, he does a good job of hiding(why the hide and seek game anyway? According to your bible, he wasn't shy before). But, I'm not close minded. If he wants to come down for a one on one, like Paul, I'll be happy to listen, and if given independently verifiable proof(in case I might be hallucinating), I'll happily recant and dedicate every moment to him. Somehow, I suspect my offer falls on non-existent ears.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

Let's suppose you do think that's your charity. Unless the religious fundies are cheating on their taxes, they are paying the same taxes and still giving more of their net income. Plus, your taxes excuse has no bearing on blood donations.

I was pointing out that the author had an agenda, and thus, his numbers are suspect, and some independent verification is required. If I were to point to a study like that from an avowedly atheist think tank, would you accept the numbers without careful scutiny? Should independent verification prove his point, then it will be time to address the issues raised.

Quote:

Mentioning Democratic racism was not a cheap shot. It was an indirect evidence that religious people are better people than secularists.

It's no proof at all. For one, virtually every self proclaimed atheist I know is libertarian, including myself, although I am, admittedly, still a registered Republican. But I'm one of those oddballs who think we can build effective governmental safety nets while still cutting down on the intrusive nature of the governement(that's another topic altogether). Most Democrats are Christians, so kindly address your concerns about racism to them.

Quote:

If you remember, I began my post by stating I received an email from rational responders saying this blog was a great attack on Christianity.

I do remember. This particular discussion(and Stein's original post) were from the Jewish viewpoint of atheists. If you wanted a general discussion, there is a forum with plenty of people perfectly willing to debate any defense of Christianity you may wish to put up for scutiny.

Quote:

Well, it's difficult to argue with the conclusion that comes from an atheistic view. Of course, you are not going to see anything new. You're likely to see everything as "that God stuff" again.; it's all the same to you.

I spent the majority of my adult life pouring myself into theological and biblical study. That I now see it as utterly fruitless doesn't mean that I never saw it with other eyes. And now, from the vantage point of having seen both, I'm quite comfortable in making that statement. Or am I not a true Scotsman now that I have rejected it?

Quote:

Your comments about rehashing Greek mythology is too complex to deal with significantly here. I'll admit that it is a common liberal (academically) interpretation...

Two problems: 1) I'm never said Greek mythology, I said Greek philosophy and CHRISTIAN mythology(to be fair, it is Jewish mythology, too); 2) this isn't a political issue, so kindly leave the liberal/conservative signs at home. If you are stuck in a gear of looking for your favorite political boogeymen in everything, you are likely to miss the actual point.

Quote:

It was the Puritans who first developed the Western idea that the wife should be the closest friend of the man.

Do you define "closest friend" as "person under your authority who only has authority derived from her husband, and only extending over the rest of the family?" If I treated my wife with Puritan ideals, I'd be divorced, and rightly so.

Quote:

And it was Baptist theology that led to the separation of church and state.

It was Baptist self interest that led to it, as they had been persecuted by the Church of England, which they considered heretical and anti-Christian, in part due to the perception that it was drawing deeply from Catholicism(popery, in Roger Williams terms). Williams rejected a joining of state and church because they had just escaped from the Anglicans. He would have been extremely foolish to recreate the situation.

Quote:

Those are some new ideas I bet you appreciate.

I will admit it. In as much as they laid the foundation for their own dissolution, some of those Christians did indeed espouse some interesting and important ideas.

The fracture of western Christianity brought on by the Reformation did help create the environment in which freethinking began to flourish, so we should at least give a nod to people like Locke and Williams for helping to lay the political foundations which nurtured deism and later outright atheism.

Of course, whatever gains I might credit the original Baptists with, I will certainly not credit to their present day descendents. They have apparently forgotten their past, and wish to impose their beliefs upon the whole of society:

One more point: the Protestant Revolution(the well from which the Baptists and Puritans you mentioned drew from) was an example of inter-Christian debate. It added nothing new to the body of philosophical questions aside from "I think God wants religion to be X."

Quote:

Kohlberg's theory is the most widely accepted and researched theory of moral development in the world.

I asked how he defined it. The answer is that the highest stage he found evidence for was based on the application of universal ethical principles. There is no required religious component to this, so no reason why an atheist cannot achieve it.

Furthermore, he found it only in a small portion of people. Given the ratio of atheists in the general population and the percentage of people he found to be at stage 6, the percentage of stage 6 atheists in the population should be somewhere around 2.5%. Unsurprising that such a theoretically tiny group wouldn't make a big impact on his studies.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

This scenario makes sense when we approach a court trial. One side is saying, "This person is guilty." The other side is saying, "This person is innocent." Both must make a case. The innocent person must defend the case. Just because they are trying to prove the negative doesn't mean they do not have to make a defense. You are not suspending belief. You have made a truth claim.

I don't think that is how court cases work. It is the prosecution making a case against the defendent. In other words, they are trying to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense, on the other hand, do not attempt to prove a negative. Instead they attempt to poking holes in the prosecution's case to show that reasonable doubt exists, or create one if it does not in some situations.

Also, a court setting is not exactly the best for deciding if a god exists or not. The simple fact that this god could or would not appear for testimony (and no, religious texts would likely not count) makes it a probable judgement by default against.

Quote:

What is your basis for sustaining any truth claim, not just this one? How do you discern what is true and what is false?

One makes the judgement based on the evidence available. Currently there is no evidence of an afterlife of any of the varieties that have been posited through out human existence. Does this mean there is absolutely no afterlife? No, there very well could be an afterlife. However, since there is no evidence for it, no necessity for it and all proclamations in favor of its existence is riddled with logical fallacies, it becomes quite reasonable to accept that an afterlife does not exist and extremely unreasonable to claim one does.

Quote:

I can give a coherent definition of my God, but would it be of any benefit?

One benefit could be to show that, unlike the many other theists who say they can give a coherent definition of their god, you are not blowing smoke up our collective asses. That you say that you can but quickly surmise that it would do no good makes it look as though you a) don't really have a definition, b) know that it would not hold up to examination and/ or c) are operating on presumptions about a group of people (in this case atheists).

Quote:

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you along with everyone else that is readily attacking theism that you have set your heart against God.

Well, you are wrong. Given that atheists do not have a belief in a god(s) it would be rather difficult to have our hearts "set against" it. Are you a Christian? If so, is it because you have your heart set against Balder*? Do you see how silly that is?

Quote:

There is no rational or logical basis to make the claim "There is no God." Why? Because, to say "there is no God" is to say there is no power or being superior than myself. To say there is no power superior than oneself is to say you are the highest being in existence. And if you are the most superior being in existence, (1) why then are subject to the physical laws of space and time? Why can't you do whatever you want when you want? (2) Why do you exist? What is the reason for your existence? (3) Why will you die? Lastly, there is no rational or logical basis to make the claim "There is no God" because to say there is no God leaves only one other hypothesis for the existence of the universe: chance. Those who deny the existence of God believe that the universe originated by chance. Please explain how this is a logical or rational claim? To say the universe happened by chance is the same as saying there is no reason for the existence of the universe. If there is no reason for the universe, then there is no way to sustain any other claim. It means there is no reason for anything.

Actually, there is a rational and logical basis for one to say "There is no god." First, there is the lack of evidence that one exists. Second, there is no need for one to exist. Third, thus far theists have either refrained from saying what this god is or have presented one that is logically improbable. All of these combined make it rather reasonable to accept that there is no god.

As it is, for one to say that there is no god does not in the least mean that one believes that there is nothing greater than them selves. This is nothing but a strawman argument so that you can successfully argue against. If you disagree with this assessment, then by all means, show me where an atheist has ever made such a claim (that they are the highest being in existence because there is no god) in such uncertain terms.

Further, no one has made the claim that life, the universe and everything is, since there is no god, a result of chance alone. Along with being another strawman, it is also a false dichotomy. By making the argument regarding chance you are inferring that there is either god or chance. But this is not an either/ or thing. There are other options. In general, atheists do say chance, or randomness, plays a role in the existence of the universe, but it does so along with other "players" (for lack of a better term). There is an order to the universe, but this does not give it purpose or direction. There is no end goal in mind for the universe and its existence does not require a god.

Conversely, why would the universe need a reason? If it did, what difference would that make to our lives (other than us simply being in it)? If it did, wouldn't it seem a little narrow minded and arrogant to think its purpose revolves around us or that our actions have any impact, good or bad, on it at all? Isn't it more than a little egotistical to think the existance of the universe, the whole vast expanse of it, from the stars to the microbe, has anything to do with or was made in some way for humanity?

Quote:

Without a reasonable first cause, there is no reasonable cause for anything.

This statement naturally does not apply to your god, right?

Quote:

It (atheism) is a belief system or a religion. It is based upon a deep desire by a person to disbelieve. It is a rejection.

Sorry, that is incorrect. Atheism is neither a belief system nor a religion, it can only be a part of one. As for it being based on one's "deep desire" to disbelieve, would that apply to anyone who said something does not exist or just to atheists? If someone says "There is no Loch Ness monster" is it because there is no reason believe such a thing exists or just due to their "deep desire" to disbelieve? If all disbelief or lack of belief does not stem from a "deep desire" to not believe in all cases, then this is simply special pleading.

Quote:

In conclusion, just because you or anyone else hasn't met God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. There real proof of God doesn't come in an argument and it certainly won't come through the computer. If God does exist, the only way to know is to meetHim. I have met God. I know Him. I don't believe God exists. I know God exists. But don't take my word for it. Go meet Him for yourself. You can't find Him unless you honestly seek Him as God.

And here is why all your previous claims fall down. Your belief that you know that your god exists lead you to make logical fallacies This is why you think atheism is an irrational rejection instead of a rational position. To you there is a god and its existence is pretty evident. In you mind the only way to not see it is to not want to see it. However, this belief makes you blind to the fact that you refrain from or cannot support your claims, despite castigating atheists for the same. Then again, maybe you do realize the pretense on your part and you are simply too intellectually dishonest to admit it, to yourself or anyone else. At any rate, your point of view is rife with special pleadings, false dichotomies, strawmen and other fallacies because you fail, refuse or cannot see it any other way. Given that this also indicates the notion that you could be wrong has never entered your thought process suggests a certain conceit on your part.

Further, your assertion that one "can't find Him unless you honestly seek Him as God" is nothing more than an admission that a belief in god, or yours at least, is based only an an a priori assumption. What your claim means is that one cannot find god unless they already, on some level, believe this god exists. This is like so many theists that claim that their religious texts only makes sense, as being true, if one reads it with the belief that the texts are true in mind. In other words, in order to believe it you have to believe it. This is a circular argument.

But don't worry, I doubt anyone will take your word for it. Although, give the amount of support, or lack thereof, you've given your assertions and allegations it seems as though that you would rather us just take your word for it. Does this signify intellectual high ground posturing? Looks that way.

*Everyone always talks about Odin and Thor, which is cool, but let's show Balder some love too.

Quantum Physics in no way proves the existence of a God, particularly a creator god in the type worshipped by the Judaic-Christian religions.

From the ground-breaking findings of the Copenhagen interpretation onwards, one of the powerful findings of Quantum Physics is the influence of the Observer, or individual, upon the reality he or she sees and experiences.

Rather than ENSLAVE the individual to a partiachial, dominating, judgmental god sitting in the clouds, some of the findings of Quantum Physics actually gives power BACK to the individual.

Even those Quantum Theorists who are investigating and accept the validity of so called 'supernatural' or 'unusual' skills and abilities (such as pre-cognition, remote viewing etc) such as Dean Radin and others, stop far short of declaring this branch of physics to prove the existence of a creator god. In fact, they all, universally declare the direct opposite.

Being connected by a Quantum Field of energy and being entangled with one another (as in Entanglement Theory) in no way pre-supposes the existence of a male creator god, nor does Quantum Theory 'need' or require one.

In my opinion, once the findings of Quantum Physics are more widely known and popularised, the existence of a sole creator god will be doubted even further as power shifts dramatically to the individual.

Also, I grow tired of some religionists automatically linking the scientific validity of certain 'mystic' or 'paranormal' abilties to a creator god. Throughout the ages such religions relentlessly pursued and murdered such mystics and initiates of independent Mystery Schools which were systematically trained in, and professed use of these abilities. Such a use of abilities is the very antithesis to the Judaic-Christian God who holds all the power and deems mankind imperfect and sinful.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. To use your illustration: You say "pink unicorns do exist." That is a claim and you must prove it. I say, "pink unicorns do not exist." That is a claim and I must prove it.

If I were to say, "I don't know if pink unicorns exist or not. However, based upon the evidence I have, I do not believe they exist. They could exist. However, I have no reason to believe they do exist." This is entirely different. By saying this, I am not making a claim. I am not saying, "pink unicorns do not exist."

Currently, you are the one making a claim. Your claim is this:

Quote:

Your particular god does not, and cannot, exist. He is logically incoherent and any religious statement regarding this being is factually meaningless.

If he wants to come down for a one on one, like Paul, I'll be happy to listen, and if given independently verifiable proof(in case I might be hallucinating), I'll happily recant and dedicate every moment to him.

Do you honestly and sincerely meant this? Would you really give your life to God if He reveals Himself to you in truth?

I don't think that is how court cases work. It is the prosecution making a case against the defendent. In other words, they are trying to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense, on the other hand, do not attempt to prove a negative. Instead they attempt to poking holes in the prosecution's case to show that reasonable doubt exists, or create one if it does not in some situations.

True. In American courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. However, in English courts, one is guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:

No, there very well could be an afterlife.

My point exactly. To say, "There is no afterlife" is to make a claim that must be sustained which is what Kelly has done.

Quote:

What your claim means is that one cannot find god unless they already, on some level, believe this god exists.

You cannot find anything unless you first believe it exists. You cannot cross the ocean and expect to find China unless you first believe that China exists.

Of course you can't find God unless you believe God exists.

But that's not even the full extent of what I am saying. I am saying that you cannot find God unless you are willing to give your life to Him.

To explain this briefly....

Imagine that you are a father who has a beautiful young daughter. Your daughter was kidnapped by her mother at birth and she has never met you. Her mother has spoken poorly of you her entire life. Your daughter, now at the age of 18, thinks your horrible person and suspects that you might even be dead. She has looked for you and never found you.

You want to reveal yourself to her. But you know that if you do, she will hurt you and further. Before you can reveal yourself, you must find a way to make amends. You must find a way to straighten out the situation. So, you send her messages through other people trying to tell her the truth. But she will not listen. She is stubborn and has given up. Until the daughter opens her heart to your love, you can never reveal yourself without entering immediately into a fight. You want to love her. But first, there needs to be reconciliation.

The same is true of God. Before anyone can meet God, they must find reconciliation.

Do you honestly and sincerely meant this? Would you really give your life to God if He reveals Himself to you in truth?

Of course. I did not become an atheist because "all the cool kids were doing it." I will follow the evidence, which I believed I was doing the whole time I was Christian. If conclusive proof is presented for a supernatural reality, I would be forced to believe in it.

The problem is that that evidence has never shown up. I spent almost the whole of my adult life believing and praying to God. I was never witness to a miracle, that is, an undeniable supernatural occurance. Once I was able to look at the question objectively, the logical proofs for god also fell. So, I followed the (lack of) evidence, and I had to leave the comfortable belief system I had wrapped myself in.

Even my theistic friends who claim to have witnessed such miracles admit, when pushed, that they not conclusive. If I had held my own religion to the same standards of proof that I demanded from others, it would fall the same. As it did, when I realized for the first time that I had become intellectually dishonest in order to accept what I felt to be true.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

You cannot find anything unless you first believe it exists. You cannot cross the ocean and expect to find China unless you first believe that China exists.

Whoa! Really? Because I am pretty sure we have a strong historical counter argument to that: Columbus. He was sailing for India. He ran into the Americas. This is an important point. His belief, or lack thereof, had no bearing on the facts, when he hit a landmass he didn't expect. The same holds true for proof of your god. If the proof is there(real proof, that is; wishful thinking doesn't count), atheists would run right aground on it, whether we like it or not.

Quote:

Imagine that you are a father who has a beautiful young daughter...

Your story with the daughter is nice, but has nothing to do with this situation. If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows exactly how to convert each and every one of us without anyone getting hurt, and posesses the means to do so. In your holy book, he was quite willing to make himself known to everyone. Or do you disbelieve all of the titanic miracles attested to in the bible?

As such, doesn't it bother you that he can't manage a measely burning column of flame, a giant hand writing in stone, or the like? With millions of souls on the line, he refuses to show himself. It makes no sense, if you are a theist. It makes complete sense if you are not.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

I'll grant that Stein does seem to be "talking out his ass", but I'm left with a lingering question: Why do you care what a converted Jew, who's only formal training is in computer programming, thinks about atheism? This guy isn't a journalist, published writer or philosopher, or even a Rabbi with a congregation, so it seems rather irrational to lob so much anger at a guy that no one is really listening to. That's like me caring what an ex-cell phone salesman with no formal training in history, philosophy or theology, thinks about Christianity--there's just nothing of value there worth getting all worked up about.

With all the media hype surrounding the Neo-Atheist "movement" disappearing, and the publishing trend of atheist screeds cooling considerably, I can't help but feel that targeting Jacob Stein is an act of desperation on your part; with a decided increase in the public lack of interest in atheism, it seems like you're just blog trolling for anyone bad mouthing atheism, then trying to portray these folks as spokesmen for the entire religious community.

Why do you care what a converted Jew, who's only formal training is in computer programming, thinks about atheism?

Personally, I get a bit pissed when someone makes false claims about me. So, I bitch a little about it. This comment section, however, has gone far beyond Stein, and is now centered on various issues brought up by readers of the original post. If I were worried what Stein thought, I would be posting in his comment section. I considered my blog post to pretty much sum up my thoughts on the issue.

Quote:

I can't help but feel that targeting Jacob Stein is an act of desperation on your part

You do know what site you are posting to, right? This site is dedicated to attacking and debunking theistic claims. Are you surprised that people actually do it?

And, I don't know about you, but I do not pick my beliefs by media consensus. I could not care less if the media is talking about atheists or not. I do not use polls to determine truth.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

Personally, I get a bit pissed when someone makes false claims about me.

That's an odd thing to say. In my experience, atheists tend to kick against being lumped into one basket, and since Stein's critique of atheism is abysmally shallow and ignorant, I don't know why you'd insist he's making false claims about you specifically.

Quote:

You do know what site you are posting to, right? This site is dedicated to attacking and debunking theistic claims. Are you surprised that people actually do it?

As cliche' as the RRS has become, I am surprised that a site that brags about being the most popular atheist website on earth has to scrape the bottom of the Blogger barrel for material. If the RRS were as powerful or as dangerous to theism as they would have everyone believe, surely they'd have actual published and accredited theologians and apologists vying for a chance to knock them down a peg or two, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I suspect because no one of any note takes the RRS seriously at all. As I noted in pt. one one of this diatribe by Kelly, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that the RRS was a parody site making fun of atheists, much like Landover Baptist Church makes fun of Christians.

FROM A COMMENT THAT WASN'T POSTED. We didn't approve one comment from "voice of reason" and also skipped this one...

VoiceofReason wrote:

I don't know if it is you, Kelly, moderating the posts to your blog or someone else

I moderated one of your posts by removing it per our rules. Anonymous posters are not allowed to break board rules at all. If you want to break board rules (the deleted post broke board rules), then sign up for an account, and your account will have some fair oversight by our mods. Otherwise as an anonymous poster, board rules can't be violated... by not allowing your post to ever show, this is akin to a ban on that one post.

Quote:

but I see now how you work.

Likely you don't, because I just told you how I work yet the rest of your post (not gonna be posted) had nothing to do with it. With nuggets like "it is blindingly obvious that you are no different than the "radical" religionists who refuse to acknowledge valid arguments against their religion." I wouldn't call you blind, I would phrase it more like "you wuv your imaginary friend wery wery much."

You also mention that the person moderating your comments should email you, yet have never provided an email. I would've guessed you were Matt Slick, but you signed your last post "Bryan." How about being a man, and registering for an account so you can get a few licks in while you have the "my god is an awesome god" juices flowing?

UH OH!

As I completed posting this Kelly said "did you see that moron sent us an email to our rrs email?" So upon inspection I now have reviewed your whiny bitchy threatening email, and have looked up your email address to find that you have an account on our site already, an active account! Sock puppets are against board rules, and you've broken them. Further more most of your posts under "voice of reason" break board rules, the only reason the first few were posted is because Kelly said to put them through. In your email you infer we wont post your comments yet between two accounts you have about 40 posts, almost all have a flair of breaking board rules. But you are still here! Oh noes!

More stuff on goon of reason:

(from email) "Hah! Kelly's blog is mostly ad hominem and vitriol. There is no real argumentation, only emotional rhetoric spewed at targets she has chosen."

[no argumentation, eh? You fraud] User Name: Riverwind Account Created: July 19, 2007 - 10:55pm Status: Active User Roles: authenticated user, A-TheistThis is a thread he once posted in Freethinking Anonymous, AGAINST BOARD RULES, then followed it up with trolling (AGAINST BOARD RULES). POST UNDER YOUR REAL NAME, YOU HACK.

I was disappointed in the way the your blog was written. It seemed to be more of an attack on the person that you do not like rather than presenting evidence for your position. It must be remembered that in a debate or discussion, when a person begans to call people names, the discussion or debate degenerates into a name calling game, and the purpose of the debate, to communicate truth and reason, is lost. This is true for both athiests and thiests. Thanks for reading.

I have nothing against them as people and had no idea who they were up until I read their bigoted diatribes. I presented evidence and attacked, which I feel is warranted considering their blatant animosity towards us.

I refuse to believe that I must remember anything in regards to responding to these types of people. I make the arguments I want to make and refuse to conceal my emotions because some people take that as being irrational. Anger is a perfectly rational response to a perceived attack. Plus, I don't really care if people don't like it. If my valid arguments are discredited in their minds because of my anger, they need to do some research. (I will be posting a study later that demonstrates otherwise.)

surely they'd have actual published and accredited theologians and apologists vying for a chance to knock them down a peg or two, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I suspect because no one of any note takes the RRS seriously at all.

The Saint

No it's because they know they're not gonna pull the same shit on us that they pull everywhere else. But you keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. To use your illustration: You say "pink unicorns do exist." That is a claim and you must prove it. I say, "pink unicorns do not exist." That is a claim and I must prove it.

If I were to say, "I don't know if pink unicorns exist or not. However, based upon the evidence I have, I do not believe they exist. They could exist. However, I have no reason to believe they do exist." This is entirely different. By saying this, I am not making a claim. I am not saying, "pink unicorns do not exist."

Currently, you are the one making a claim. Your claim is this:

Quote:

Your particular god does not, and cannot, exist. He is logically incoherent and any religious statement regarding this being is factually meaningless.

Therefore, it is your job to sustain your claim. Prove it!

I didn't say that no supernatural entities can exist--I just said Yahweh doesn't. From a logical standpoint, there is not only no evidence, but the attributes given to this particular god are contradictory. Omnimax creator beings cannot exist. There are a thousand and one ways to demonstrate the conundrum it puts one in to contemplate this being and the mental gymnastics necessary to sustain such a belief. Your use of wishful thinking does not prove anything. Whether it's theodicy, creation, omnipotence vs.divine freedom, omniscience vs. free will, etc. Michael Martin uses the "Scriven Principle" in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification that he expounds upon and describes thusly as a justification for positive atheism:

A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that there would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and (3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and (4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and (5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists. (p 283)

You will probably take issue with (2), so I'll preemptively state that an omniscient, omnipotent being would not only know, but be able to provide evidence for anybody. The bible states that god desires all men to be saved and that he is evident to all. Christians continually resort to shifting the goalpost when they encounter this by attempting to prove a nebulous god and then claiming it was Yahweh. Another fallacy. Need I go on?

I've already spent too much time teaching you things that you should study on your own before you make shitty arguments.

No it's because they know they're not gonna pull the same shit on us that they pull everywhere else. But you keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

I know you're from Philly, and the "tough guy" routine is almost obligatory, but am I really supposed to believe that heavyweight Christian apologists will debate the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, but they won't debate you, because your shit is too real?

In my experience, atheists tend to kick against being lumped into one basket, and since Stein's critique of atheism is abysmally shallow and ignorant, I don't know why you'd insist he's making false claims about you specifically.

I don't. He makes claims about atheists in general, and I responded. And, in fact, I've long since moved past Stein's contribution to this fun.

Quote:

As cliche' as the RRS has become, I am surprised that a site that brags about being the most popular atheist website on earth has to scrape the bottom of the Blogger barrel for material. If the RRS were as powerful or as dangerous to theism as they would have everyone believe, surely they'd have actual published and accredited theologians and apologists vying for a chance to knock them down a peg or two, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

The RRS is not dangerous. Freethought is dangerous. The RRS is another example of people fed up with irrationality parading as truth, and they like to point it out with venom and ridicule. Kelly can also decide who and what she comments on. It is not up to you and I. If you dislike that, relief is just one click away.

I frankly don't see many "published and accredited theologians"(accredited by whom and for what? Does god have an agency for managing that?) rushing forward to the debate. I personally haven't debated anyone trained in theology or biblical studies in a long time who didn't duck out of the debate with an appeal to the "mystery of god." I have no respect left for that cop out.

Quote:

I suspect because no one of any note takes the RRS seriously at all. As I noted in pt. one one of this diatribe by Kelly, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that the RRS was a parody site making fun of atheists, much like Landover Baptist Church makes fun of Christians.

And yet you hang around. It's almost like you obsessively type arguments against people who don't matter. Wait, that's what you keep complaining that I am doing. Hmmmm.....

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

You cannot find anything unless you first believe it exists. You cannot cross the ocean and expect to find China unless you first believe that China exists.

Really? So one could not have just started sailing and ended up somewhere--kind of like Africans and South America, the Vikings, etc.? You must know the end before you can begin?

Quote:

But that's not even the full extent of what I am saying. I am saying that you cannot find God unless you are willing to give your life to Him.

Well, then, I guess you guys can't use the argument that all these "former atheists" became christian all of a sudden against their own will. Sweet. I'll remember that one.

Quote:

Imagine that you are a father who has a beautiful young daughter. Your daughter was kidnapped by her mother at birth and she has never met you. Her mother has spoken poorly of you her entire life. Your daughter, now at the age of 18, thinks your horrible person and suspects that you might even be dead. She has looked for you and never found you.

You want to reveal yourself to her. But you know that if you do, she will hurt you and further. Before you can reveal yourself, you must find a way to make amends. You must find a way to straighten out the situation. So, you send her messages through other people trying to tell her the truth. But she will not listen. She is stubborn and has given up. Until the daughter opens her heart to your love, you can never reveal yourself without entering immediately into a fight. You want to love her. But first, there needs to be reconciliation.

The same is true of God. Before anyone can meet God, they must find reconciliation.

Besides the fact that I just threw up a little in my mouth reading your revision of the prodigal son parable, how could a perfect god be hurt? Would that not reveal a failure on his part? If he knows and even PLANNED all of this, why would he be surprised or hurt by it? How can a measly little depraved, disgusting human being affect the emotions of this wondrous and awesome god? Just a tad too anthropomorphic, methinks.

No it's because they know they're not gonna pull the same shit on us that they pull everywhere else. But you keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

I know you're from Philly, and the "tough guy" routine is almost obligatory, but am I really supposed to believe that heavyweight Christian apologists will debate the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, but they won't debate you, because your shit is too real?

I never said because our shit is too real, but yes you hit the nail on the head, they are more willing to debate those guys because they can pull the same shit they pull everywhere else, just like I said. Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer were all railroaded by a string of never ending lies from Dinesh D'Souza, each time they responded in their typical manner.

Typical manner= be polite, try to look like the bigger person, act civil, prop up your position rather than shoot down his.

On our show, we wouldn't even have time to state our positions, we'd be too busy countering every single lie Dinesh tells, as he tells it, something you didn't see, nor really had any chance of seeing in his other debates (because of the format he makes sure to get which allows him to spit his propaganda campaign almost unchallenged). Sorry, the format on RRS does not allow for the theist to have their typical 5 minute unchallenged full of holes rant to go on, without a challenge, like EVERY other formal debate I have ever seen on the subject. Kelly's written the most popular blogs of the year refuting Dinesh. They've been posted to his blog, sent to his email, and reposted in numerous places. He's attacked Shermer, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens... where is the response to her?

When Dawkins took the stage in the formal debate setting last year in Alabama against the Oxford theologian, he had his ass handed to him, not because he didn't make good points but because he didn't respond properly to many points. As the Christian was on the stage trying to build a burden of proof for Dawkins, trying to make Dawkins prove God doesn't exist all night long, he changed the course of the "debate" and forced Dawkins into a situation he seemed to have no clue how to win. Dawkins was civil and polite in the face of such absurdity, and did not properly counter the arguments from the theologian who pulled the exact same stops they pull everywhere.... they just don't get away with it on our show and on our site.

But by all means, go ahead and call the best of the best up, tell them we'll host them on our show when we get the ability to record again. See what they say.

So yes, I'll repeat myself for the deluded among you, Mr Cliche here stating the reason why you don't see more apologists getting their asses handed to them by RRS is because they're too scared to participate on our show. Need me to say it again? Maybe scribble it on your face and have you stand in the mirror?

I'll grant that Stein does seem to be "talking out his ass", but I'm left with a lingering question: Why do you care what a converted Jew, who's only formal training is in computer programming, thinks about atheism? This guy isn't a journalist, published writer or philosopher, or even a Rabbi with a congregation, so it seems rather irrational to lob so much anger at a guy that no one is really listening to. That's like me caring what an ex-cell phone salesman with no formal training in history, philosophy or theology, thinks about Christianity--there's just nothing of value there worth getting all worked up about.

I care what people say about atheists because I am one and if I run across something that deserves a response, I do it. Who cares who it is? Does a racist in a trailer park in Alabama not need some re-education despite his limited impact?

For somebody who doesn't care what Brian (and by extension, all of us, some of whom do have "formal" training, which is of no more value than independent study and research) thinks, you sure do spend an awful lot of time trying to prove us wrong. Why bother?

Quote:

With all the media hype surrounding the Neo-Atheist "movement" disappearing, and the publishing trend of atheist screeds cooling considerably, I can't help but feel that targeting Jacob Stein is an act of desperation on your part; with a decided increase in the public lack of interest in atheism, it seems like you're just blog trolling for anyone bad mouthing atheism, then trying to portray these folks as spokesmen for the entire religious community.

"Atheist screeds cooling considerably"? You really are deluded. Look up new releases and you'll find one from Hitchens, a compilation involving Richard Dawkins, a new book by Susan Jacoby, and lots of other relatively recent books by authors like Matthew Chapman, Robert Price, etc. I would tell you to do some research before you make easily repudiated claims, but that's just not your MO, is it?

Just FYI, I have a list of things that I would like to respond to but don't have the time for at least 100 links long. Most of these are from printed sources. Atheists are not going anywhere, so you might as well get used to it.

My point exactly. To say, "There is no afterlife" is to make a claim that must be sustained which is what Kelly has done.

That may have been your point but you have either missed mine or ignored it completely. Also, although you insist that Kelly and others must support their claims (a point I agree with and think they have done so), you notably refrain or refuse to do so with yours.

Quote:

You cannot find anything unless you first believe it exists. You cannot cross the ocean and expect to find China unless you first believe that China exists.

Again, you miss or ignore my point. If one believes something exists, then they are likely to find evidence that it does regardless of whether it exists or not. This is not to say such evidence is sound evidence or even confirmation of what ones believes, but to the believer it is verification none the less. There is also likely to be a wealth of data that contradicts the belief, but that will all be ignored or rationalized away. In the end, when one starts out from the position of belief in something that is questionable, improbable and superfluous effects such as truth, facts and reality become, at best, secondary issues if they register in the equation at all.

Quote:

Of course you can't find God unless you believe God exists.

But that's not even the full extent of what I am saying. I am saying that you cannot find God unless you are willing to give your life to Him.

Again, starting from this belief only allows you to acknowledge that which supports the belief and ignore that which does not. By beginning from a belief that god exists you have purged any and all thought to the possiblity that god does not exist. This is not how one searches for truth.

Quote:

To explain this briefly....

Imagine that you are a father who has a beautiful young daughter. Your daughter was kidnapped by her mother at birth and she has never met you. Her mother has spoken poorly of you her entire life. Your daughter, now at the age of 18, thinks your horrible person and suspects that you might even be dead. She has looked for you and never found you.

You want to reveal yourself to her. But you know that if you do, she will hurt you and further. Before you can reveal yourself, you must find a way to make amends. You must find a way to straighten out the situation. So, you send her messages through other people trying to tell her the truth. But she will not listen. She is stubborn and has given up. Until the daughter opens her heart to your love, you can never reveal yourself without entering immediately into a fight. You want to love her. But first, there needs to be reconciliation.

That's quite the silly hypothetical you present. If this were the situation, then going about it this way would likely only confirm her negative opinion of me, as well as adding a few more bad traits to my character in her mind, on top of being completely unconstructive. As with many arguments by analogy it is a shoddy argument as it is generally the only resort of those with a deficient understanding of the topic at hand. That is unless you actually believe your god to be an inept and craven little emo kid that can't effectively take matters into his own hands.

Quote:

The same is true of God. Before anyone can meet God, they must find reconciliation.

I thought you said it required belief first. Now there has to be reconciliation too? What is to be reconciled and by whom?

Really? So one could not have just started sailing and ended up somewhere

For a person to even begin to sail, they first must believe there is something more out there. You are claiming to be an atheist. Used in this context, it would like the sailor saying, "I believe there is something out there on the other side of the ocean." The atheist would reply, "I don't believe it." Because of a lack of a belief, the atheist would never get on a vessel and cross the ocean.

You cannot find God unless you believe some sort of a higher power (ie. God) exists, or at the very least you are open to the possibility. Otherwise, you won't get on the boat and go look.

Quote:

Well, then, I guess you guys can't use the argument that all these "former atheists" became christian all of a sudden against their own will.

I haven't heard that one before. But you are correct. If Christ is who He claimed to be, then He will not force anyone into Christianity. That's not His objective.

And just for the record, just because I am a theist, doesn't mean we are all the same. Atheists are not all the same. I certainly don't see them all the same. I have encountered atheists of different levels of disbelief. Some boldly proclaim there is no God. Others say, "I just don't believe due to a lack of evidence." Not all atheists are the same and not all agree.

So please, don't say "you guys" as though I fit into the same category as all the others. Personally, I actually agree with some atheists on their assertions about religion. It is evil and far worse than atheism. People have done horrible things in the name of religion. Most religions are an effort of people trying to control other people. There is proof and evidence of this.

The problem comes, however, in the thought that all religions are the same and all are evil. Just because religious people on earth have contradicted themselves and done evil things--this is no proof that God doesn't exist. And this is not to say that there is a true God trying to speak.

I have my religious scars being lied to the majority of my life. But then God showed Himself to me.

Quote:

Besides the fact that I just threw up a little in my mouth reading your revision of the prodigal son parable, how could a perfect god be hurt? Would that not reveal a failure on his part? If he knows and even PLANNED all of this, why would he be surprised or hurt by it? How can a measly little depraved, disgusting human being affect the emotions of this wondrous and awesome god?

No failure on His part. God is love. That is how He can be affected by measily little human beings. He loves them. He takes interest in everything about them. He searches the inner depths of every person's heart. He cries when we cry. He laughs when we laugh.

I never said because our shit is too real, but yes you hit the nail on the head, they are more willing to debate those guys because they can pull the same shit they pull everywhere else, just like I said. Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer were all railroaded by a string of never ending lies from Dinesh D'Souza, each time they responded in their typical manner.

Typical manner= be polite, try to look like the bigger person, act civil, prop up your position rather than shoot down his.

Yes--it's called formal debate, and it usually takes place between two or more intelligent, civilized persons of differing viewpoints. It's the preferred academic format for the rational discussion of ideas. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Quote:

On our show, we wouldn't even have time to state our positions, we'd be too busy countering every single lie Dinesh tells, as he tells it, something you didn't see, nor really had any chance of seeing in his other debates (because of the format he makes sure to get which allows him to spit his propaganda campaign almost unchallenged). Sorry, the format on RRS does not allow for the theist to have their typical 5 minute unchallenged full of holes rant to go on, without a challenge, like EVERY other formal debate I have ever seen on the subject.

Riiiight. I've listened to your shows, Brian--you don't do formal debate, because you aren't capable of doing formal debates. You proved that with your debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, which was just awful. The fact that you somehow managed to barely come out on top in that debate says less about your skill as a debater, and more about the total ineptitude of the Cameron/Comfort team. No, the RRS format is about getting unsuspecting apologists on your show, then ganging up on them in a profanity-laced rant, without ever letting them get a word in edge wise, then abruptly hanging up on them in a fit of rage, then declaring "victory". The reason that your format is this way is because you're completely incapable of defending your position in a rational and intelligent manner; you don't know a thing about history, theology, philosophy, or any other discipline you and your cronies pretend to be "experts" in. Instead, you employ school yard bully tactics to cover up your blinding ignorance, which force the reasonable person to just give up in frustration, at which point you brag about how you "pwned" them. That might be impressive to the unwashed pre-teen masses that make up the bulk of your membership, but serious thinkers--atheists and theists alike--are not impressed. That's why folks like Dinesh D'Souza don't bother with you, and I suspect that's why your organization has becomes somewhat of a running joke among other, more intelligent atheist.

Quote:

Kelly's written the most popular blogs of the year refuting Dinesh. They've been posted to his blog, sent to his email, and reposted in numerous places. He's attacked Shermer, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens... where is the response to her?

Given the insulting nature of her responses to others that I've read, no doubt that Dinesh doesn't believe that Kelly's e mails warrant a response. Whether one agrees with them or not, at least Shermer, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are intelligent, civil, and reasonably respectful towards those of differing views, which is far more than anyone can say about you or Kelly.

Quote:

When Dawkins took the stage in the formal debate setting last year in Alabama against the Oxford theologian, he had his ass handed to him, not because he didn't make good points but because he didn't respond properly to many points. As the Christian was on the stage trying to build a burden of proof for Dawkins, trying to make Dawkins prove God doesn't exist all night long, he changed the course of the "debate" and forced Dawkins into a situation he seemed to have no clue how to win. Dawkins was civil and polite in the face of such absurdity, and did not properly counter the arguments from the theologian who pulled the exact same stops they pull everywhere.... they just don't get away with it on our show and on our site.

Gosh, imagine that--a person being challenged to prove their own assertions in a debate. How completely unfair. :rollseyes:

Quote:

But by all means, go ahead and call the best of the best up, tell them we'll host them on our show when we get the ability to record again. See what they say.

I imagine I already know what they'd say: The RRS are a bunch of shaved apes who employ bully tactics to cover up the fact that there isn't an intelligent and rational one among them--participating in their show is a total waste of time.

Quote:

So yes, I'll repeat myself for the deluded among you, Mr Cliche here stating the reason why you don't see more apologists getting their asses handed to them by RRS is because they're too scared to participate on our show. Need me to say it again? Maybe scribble it on your face and have you stand in the mirror?

A tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. You're so predictably transparent, Brian.

Atheism has been around at least since Socrates, so I have no illusions about it disappearing anytime soon. That being said, despite your unfounded enthusiasm that atheism is rapidly growing, atheism has never won widespread appeal, and never will. So what you say is true, at least in one sense: Atheism really isn't going anywhere.

I never said because our shit is too real, but yes you hit the nail on the head, they are more willing to debate those guys because they can pull the same shit they pull everywhere else, just like I said. Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer were all railroaded by a string of never ending lies from Dinesh D'Souza, each time they responded in their typical manner.

Typical manner= be polite, try to look like the bigger person, act civil, prop up your position rather than shoot down his.

Yes--it's called formal debate, and it usually takes place between two or more intelligent, civilized persons of differing viewpoints. It's the preferred academic format for the rational discussion of ideas. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Formal debate is nothing but a contest which employs tactics and strategies, utilizes persuasion and appeals to emotion, in an effort to win. It is wholly useless as a a means to discover the truth of any proposition and not at all a format conducive to rational discourse. Debate often discourages rational discourse being as that rational discourse is often a poor strategy to employ if one hopes to win a debate. Those who always insist on formal debate are those who realize that their claims can not stand on their own weight in a rational discussion and that they need to utilize the tactics and strategies afforded by the formal debate format to hope to persuade others of their position.

The sum total of the rest of your comment is not worth the time required to reply as it is simply making unsubstantiated claims as to the intelligence level of RRS members. You, of course, provide insight into your own intelligence level and lack of ability to hold a rational conversation through the attacking ad hom style of your posts. That's okay, though. We are more than used to hypocritical theists around here. It has come to be expected.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

First I'd just like to say that I don't care if a person is Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, or any other thing.

But I did notice a statements in your "rational response" that sounded somewhat familiar to me. It took me a minute but with the help of my young nieces and nephew I realized where I had heard it before.

In part one you typed;

Fields accuses us of being "intellectually inept," but with his clear lack of knowledge, one can only assume that he must be looking at his own internal mirror.

You often hear children use this argument in the familiar form, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.", or in the words of PeeWee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?".

You also typed; "coming from people who base their lives on compartmentalization and self-deception." while referring to religious believers, thats a little like the pot calling the kettle black when you follow it up with "It is up to you to present the evidence that proves the existence of your imaginary friend!". It sounds as though you are a little closed minded and self-deceiving also. If you are basing your lack of belief on science, the the appropriate scientific position would be to remain open minded and neutral until such a time that one position or the other is unequivically proven.

After all, prior to 1930 science had proven there were only 8 planets in this solar system, but then oops, there are nine. Then in 2006 there were only 8 again, or is it 9 still? Scientists just simple can't agree whether or not that nineth bidy is a planet or a dwarf planet, that doesn't even count the other 4 planet sized objects that they have found recently.

In 1403 according to science the Earth was flat, blood letting was the prefered treatment for most illness.

Oh, and once upon a time science proved that the African people were more closely related to the Gorilla than to the white man.

Since science is primarily based on assumption (theories) it is a very poor "theology" to base a belief system (or lack there of) on.

That being said, I am sure you have heard this before, but it is so true that it is worth repeating. To paraphrase the French mathematician Pascal: If I believe in a God is there is not one, What harm has been done? But, If I don't believe and there is one....

I truly appreciate it that you are publicizing my blog. I hope that some people out there will take the time to read all of posts in their entirety and also check out the links on my blog to other websites.

I am sorry that you are not happy with my post. However, only the truth hurts. Let me guess. You are middle aged, lonely, unmarried and have a cat. You are depressed about your wasted life which you have spent pursuing rainbows. And now here I come, rubbing it in about how wrong you are. Instead of kicking yourself as you should you want to kick me. Am I right? It’s a shame.

Once again Kelly, I applaud your blog articles. I like your style and I revel in the comments it generates. I also think that you and Brian are correct in the assertion that noted theists are unwilling to debate with you on your show due to fear; they fear that the lack of a familiar format will not allow them to curry the same sort of favor with an audience that is generally not of the same composition as those they are used to seeing. Let's face it: unless atheists make a concerted effort to be a part of those audiences, you will not find a large majority of them in attendance because they have arrived there as an accident of circumstance or through random selection. There just aren't that many of us concentrated in one place. Theists would have to come to you, and that presents them with a problem since you most certainly would not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. Funny, Daniel walks into the lion's den but no one wants to be in the presence of the Rational Responders; go figure.

One fact that I think is always overlooked by theists is that atheists have already "been there, done that." Few among us can claim that they were raised as rational atheists. I was raised Jewish, and oddly enough, the Protestant Bible is one of the catalysts for my rejection of theism. I sat down to read it one day and was amazed at how similar it was, in certain sections, to the Torah. Yet these people did not like each other. How could an all-encompassing, all-loving deity forsake one group over another, provide both with corroborating and contradictory accounts? How could different versions not only come about, but when extrapolated to include the rest of the sects, how could they arise if there was only one true version? Simple questions, yes, but I was only about 10 years old. However, these are the questions that begat my disbelief; everything afterward was mere reinforcement and affirmation.

We have already heard the lies and distortions. We have already given faith to the Great Unseen. We have already determined that it was a waste of time because it is falsehood. We decided to stop believing. For those of you who will claim that you never believed, more power to you, but the majority of us have anger because we were lied to and manipulated into doing and believing things that are not necessarily true or for our own good.

As a former Jew I must clarify that my own atheism was not that difficult to accept. Judaism lends itself to atheism in many ways. There is very little fear-mongering through Judaism. There is no constant attention to the concept of sin, there is no fully established model of post-life punishment and only a vague notion of reward (there are minor sectarian differences). Really, in the grand scheme of things, Jews have a hard time seeing the grand scheme, if there even is one.

But the fact remains that we have experienced what religion has to offer and we have found it profoundly wanting, not to forget insulting and dehumanizing. We are trying to share the truth about the delusion with others who have not yet been fortunate enough to see the truth for themselves (and with chilling exposes such as "The God Who Wasn't There" available as just one example, we have a lot of work to do). We refuse to believe again, and for good reason (what is the recidivism rate for atheists, anyway?).

So, fuck civility and staid debate formats and intellectually sterile environments. I hope you continue to banter with the bubbleheads, harvesting as much invective and hostility as you can along the way, and make sure that it all gets posted (Brian, I would have allowed voice of reason's posts to be seen, even if only to illustrate the support for free speech as a corollary for free thought...any reasonable person would probably have seen through the false bravado that occurs via the old 'telephone tough guy' routine...maybe you should post it in another section of the site, or give it its own section and call it "Things That Bore Us&quot. You guys are doing great and I hope you keep at it for a while. Thanks.

I have little poignant or anecdotal to share in this space, but I'm glad I wrote something that made someone like you waste their time reading it. HAVE SOME.

Formal debate is nothing but a contest which employs tactics and strategies, utilizes persuasion and appeals to emotion, in an effort to win. It is wholly useless as a a means to discover the truth of any proposition and not at all a format conducive to rational discourse.

I never claimed or asserted that formal debate was a useful means to discover truth--that's your little Straw Man. I merely state several points of fact: that formal debate usually takes place between intelligent, civilized persons, that it is the preferred academic format for the rational discussion of ideas, and that the fine folks at the RRS are incapable of participating in such a format, as they are neither intelligent, civilized, nor rational.

Quote:

Those who always insist on formal debate are those who realize that their claims can not stand on their own weight in a rational discussion and that they need to utilize the tactics and strategies afforded by the formal debate format to hope to persuade others of their position.

People who claim that formal debate is for those who's claims cannot stand on their own merit are the people who are fearful of formal debate for those very reasons. The "Four Horsmen" of Atheism are very familiar faces on the formal debate scene--are you really asserting here that the arguments of the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris cannot stand on their own weight? That's quite an admission.

Dear Kelly, I truly appreciate it that you are publicizing my blog. I hope that some people out there will take the time to read all of posts in their entirety and also check out the links on my blog to other websites.

It's certainly good reason to leave faith, I think they should read it too.

Quote:

I am sorry that you are not happy with my post.

That's why your next few sentences are an attempt at an insult right?

Quote:

However, only the truth hurts. Let me guess.

Guess all you want, your guesses make anyone who knows Kelly laugh at your poor ability to guess, leading one to question how closely you are to guessing the god hypothesis correctly.

Quote:

You are middle aged, lonely, unmarried and have a cat.

She's 29, we recently got engaged (and don't have wedding plans as she is still married to the person she has been seperated from for about 2 years) and are the happiest we've ever been in our lives, and we live with our two best friends who have an in-law attachment on our house. Kelly is also adored by tons of fans, gets a ton of email in this vein, and has a seemingly never ending barrage of people around her that support her. Also she doesn't really like cats however the other 3 adults in the house do, and we have several. If it was up to her we wouldn't have any.

With that said... let's say Kelly is the person you described, because no doubt there are members of our community who are as you described. My question would be, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HER ARGUMENTS?

Quote:

You are depressed about your wasted life which you have spent pursuing rainbows.

She's not depressed about a life wasted, she doesn't feel her life is a waste at all. If there was depression among us in this house it would be the knowledge that we are related to dishonest ad hominem shitbags such as yourself through a process known as evolution in which we all share a common bond. We are embrassed, ashamed, and yes sometimes depressed to be related to people like you.

Quote:

And now here I come, rubbing it in about how wrong you are.

Actually to us, you confirm how right we are. Which is why we have no problem promoting your blog as she tears it to shreds.

Quote:

Instead of kicking yourself as you should you want to kick me.

The point of her blog is to kick theism in the ass, you just happen to be collateral damage. Don't think too much about it, you're simply in the way of forming a better future for humanity. As we form that better future you will not be the only one countered, refuted, and laughed at.

Quote:

Am I right? It’s a shame.

As you can see, no you are not right. I've now read two pieces by you and I must say you've done a great job of showing me how either dishonest or ignorant you are. You are the epitome of who this blog project seeks to metaphorically strangle, I'm so glad she picked you.

Jacob Stein, Care to argue anything or is all you have an ad hominem attack?

Once again Kelly, I applaud your blog articles. I like your style and I revel in the comments it generates. I also think that you and Brian are correct in the assertion that noted theists are unwilling to debate with you on your show due to fear; they fear that the lack of a familiar format will not allow them to curry the same sort of favor with an audience that is generally not of the same composition as those they are used to seeing.

Thank you.

Quote:

(Brian, I would have allowed voice of reason's posts to be seen, even if only to illustrate the support for free speech as a corollary for free thought...any reasonable person would probably have seen through the false bravado that occurs via the old 'telephone tough guy' routine...maybe you should post it in another section of the site, or give it its own section and call it "Things That Bore Us&quot. You guys are doing great and I hope you keep at it for a while. Thanks.

Before reading your post on this I had already posted his comments in trollville and turned on anonymous commenting in that section so he can continue to break the rules... in the interest of freethought.

For a person to even begin to sail, they first must believe there is something more out there. You are claiming to be an atheist. Used in this context, it would like the sailor saying, "I believe there is something out there on the other side of the ocean." The atheist would reply, "I don't believe it." Because of a lack of a belief, the atheist would never get on a vessel and cross the ocean.

No...what one would say is, "I wonder what's on the other side of the ocean." With no idea either way, it would be absurd to believe that something is there. It would also be absurd to believe that something is definitely not there. The proper analogy would be, "There's no evidence at the present time for the existence of anything else over there, but I am open to evidence." Then, it's up to somebody to prove it.

Quote:

You cannot find God unless you believe some sort of a higher power (ie. God) exists, or at the very least you are open to the possibility. Otherwise, you won't get on the boat and go look.

I've been on the boat--the accomodations sucked and the company was miserable. I jumped ship after about four years of getting nowhere.

Quote:

I haven't heard that one before. But you are correct. If Christ is who He claimed to be, then He will not force anyone into Christianity. That's not His objective.

That argument is used by Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron.

Quote:

And just for the record, just because I am a theist, doesn't mean we are all the same. Atheists are not all the same. I certainly don't see them all the same. I have encountered atheists of different levels of disbelief. Some boldly proclaim there is no God. Others say, "I just don't believe due to a lack of evidence." Not all atheists are the same and not all agree.

I never attempted to lump all believers or non-believers together. I recognize that there are differences. If I am addressing you, and use a nebulous term like "you people", I am likely referring to people like you. Not all believers generally. I wouldn't say, "You people are all suicide bombers," because that would be idiotic.

I also recognize that atheists come in many varieties and I am specific about my own atheism and the parts that I feel can be logically defended.

Quote:

So please, don't say "you guys" as though I fit into the same category as all the others. Personally, I actually agree with some atheists on their assertions about religion. It is evil and far worse than atheism. People have done horrible things in the name of religion. Most religions are an effort of people trying to control other people. There is proof and evidence of this.

I'm glad that you at least agree on that point.

Quote:

The problem comes, however, in the thought that all religions are the same and all are evil. Just because religious people on earth have contradicted themselves and done evil things--this is no proof that God doesn't exist. And this is not to say that there is a true God trying to speak.

There is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The logical stance on such entitites is to suspend belief until proven otherwise.

How does an omnipotent god "try" something. Isn't he kind of like Yoda: "There is no try. Only do." (paraphrasing from a rusty Star Wars memory)

Quote:

No failure on His part. God is love. That is how He can be affected by measily little human beings. He loves them. He takes interest in everything about them. He searches the inner depths of every person's heart. He cries when we cry. He laughs when we laugh.

This is preaching which cannot be substantiated in any way. God cries because of the plan that he designed and enacted? Puhleaze. If that were true, I would have no pity for the sick bastard.

Formal debate is nothing but a contest which employs tactics and strategies, utilizes persuasion and appeals to emotion, in an effort to win. It is wholly useless as a a means to discover the truth of any proposition and not at all a format conducive to rational discourse.

I never claimed or asserted that formal debate was a useful means to discover truth--that's your little Straw Man.

Show me where in the above I state that such a thing was your claim. Reading comprehension is a skill that requires practice. Just take your time and you'll get the hang of it.

Now, if formal debate is not a useful means for discovering truth, which you do not contest, then why should those interested in rational discourse involve themselves with formal debates?

Quote:

I merely state several points of fact: that formal debate usually takes place between intelligent, civilized persons,

I have seen several formal debates between people I would consider neither intelligent nor civilized. Do you have statistics to show that these are the usual participants in formal debate? You make such a claim only so that you can then claim the RRS is not intelligent or civilized because they won't enter formal debates. Can you see the problem we have here? I'll give you some time to figure it out.

Quote:

that it is the preferred academic format for the rational discussion of ideas,

This is completely inaccurate. Formal debate is not the preferred academic format for rational discussion of ideas. Where did you ever get such an idea? How many professional academics actually involve themselves in formal debates? The preferred academic format for rational discussion of ideas is publication and review.

As I stated previously, formal debate is a contest not a venue for rational discussion of ideas. Formal debate is unconcerned with the rational content of the ideas presented and only concerned with the ability to persuade people that one has presented their position in a more convincing manner than their opponent.

Quote:

and that the fine folks at the RRS are incapable of participating in such a format, as they are neither intelligent, civilized, nor rational.

Yes, more of your intellect free ad hom style. Wonderful. You are a fine example of rational discourse.

Quote:

Vessel wrote:

Those who always insist on formal debate are those who realize that their claims can not stand on their own weight in a rational discussion and that they need to utilize the tactics and strategies afforded by the formal debate format to hope to persuade others of their position.

People who claim that formal debate is for those who's claims cannot stand on their own merit are the people who are fearful of formal debate for those very reasons.

No. Many of those people are still perfectly willing to put their positions into the public arena to be scrutinized by any who care to critique them by means such as publishing them or perhaps even, as in the case of the RRS, by posting them to blogs and forums. They simply will not grant others the ability to hide the flaws in their arguments behind time limits, emotional appeals, grandstanding, and debate tactics that add nothing to the process of rational discourse.

Quote:

The "Four Horsmen" of Atheism are very familiar faces on the formal debate scene--are you really asserting here that the arguments of the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris cannot stand on their own weight?

If they insist on formal debate as a substitue for rational discussion then, yes, there is most likely a flaw in their position. It is a tactic that has been used by many, such as Kent Hovind, because it allows a skilled tactician or strategist to win despite the rational and intellectual vacuity of their position.

Quote:

That's quite an admission.

Admission of what? I am none of those people, nor are any specific positions of their's any concern of mine. Whether or not their positions can stand on their own weight is a matter for them to address. I will address such matters for my own positions, thank you.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

Anyway, let me just say that I know how hard it can be to be an atheist. I know all about the addictions, the alcohol, the promiscuity, the crystal meth, the constant masturbation and porn. I know it's not easy to squeeze in a little time to think straight.

However, if anyone out there wants to read my blog, I look forward to their visit and to reading their comments.

It took me a minute but with the help of my young nieces and nephew I realized where I had heard it before. In part one you typed; Fields accuses us of being "intellectually inept," but with his clear lack of knowledge, one can only assume that he must be looking at his own internal mirror. You often hear children use this argument in the familiar form, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.", or in the words of PeeWee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?".

Did your nieces and nephews follow the comment up with studies? Were they also using words like acerbic, unscrupulous, and diatribe? Did your nieces and nephews explain to Uncle Chuck that quote mining and comparing arguments to those of children is not a very good defense?

Here is what she said in full form, it doesn't look much like I'm rubber your glue to me, because it's actually followed up by an argument. For the record, "I'm rubber you're glue" is a good way to help kids deal with the bullies and mental harrasment many kids are subjected to in school, the exact sort of harrasment adults face from religion. How ironic.

Kelly arguing like a child - so says Uncle Chuck wrote:

Atheism is increasing worldwide, a fact easily proven by population studies and surveys. He calls us arrogant, and yet he is the one who claims to have the answer for every person on earth's search for meaning and value. Instead of "gasping for air", atheism is thriving, and it's not surprising to see the religious in denial-purposely pulling the wool over their eyes and pretending that their fairy tales have validity.

Of course, this shouldn't be shocking coming from people who base their lives on compartmentalization and self-deception. Speaking of dishonesty, I wonder what Fields would think of Jacob Stein's acerbic and unscrupulous diatribe titled "Why Atheism is Not a Religion." Trust me, that is the only thing upon which we agree.

Yeah, her arguments remind us all of middle school again don't they? Oh no wait, I was confusing your arguments with hers. Way to go Chuck, the dishonesty oozes out of you.

Quote:

You also typed; "coming from people who base their lives on compartmentalization and self-deception." while referring to religious believers, thats a little like the pot calling the kettle black when you follow it up with "It is up to you to present the evidence that proves the existence of your imaginary friend!". It sounds as though you are a little closed minded and self-deceiving also. If you are basing your lack of belief on science, the the appropriate scientific position would be to remain open minded and neutral until such a time that one position or the other is unequivically proven.

Agreed, and if you bothered to look around a little and decipher our positions before commenting you'd probably know by now that we are fully open to the possibility that there is a god. Go ahead and prove it. While we wait for proof, there is no good reason to believe in one.

Quote:

In 1403 according to science the Earth was flat, blood letting was the prefered treatment for most illness.

No according to science it was spherical. Eratosthenes of Alexandria estimated the circumference of the Earth about 1200 years before your date, his margin of error was less than 1%. Unfortunatly due to religion, that information was suppressed. See the burning of the library of Alexandria. Many scientists knew the Earth was spherical but maintained silence due to the dark age period where if you spoke up about such information you could be killed.

Our buddy "voice of reason" should put that in his "in the interest of freethought pipe" and smoke it.

Quote:

Since science is primarily based on assumption (theories)

Theories aren't assumptions. Ask your nieces and nephews to help you out with this one, they will hopefully learn it in 9th grade biology like I did, if your religion hasn't completely fucked over their schooling by then.

Quote:

That being said, I am sure you have heard this before, but it is so true that it is worth repeating. To paraphrase the French mathematician Pascal: If I believe in a God is there is not one, What harm has been done? But, If I don't believe and there is one....

It only bears repeating if your purpose is to expose yourself as a fucking idiot.

So you believe in Poseidon, Osiris, and Allah right? If not, you're a liar and a hypocrite, and a dumb one at that. Pascals wager is the easiest theistic argument to refute. You know muslims use it to convert people to Islam right?

Anyway, let me just say that I know how hard it can be to be an atheist. I know all about the addictions, the alcohol, the promiscuity, the crystal meth, the constant masturbation and porn.

That is how you were when you were an atheist? Have you gotten over the crystal meth(Ted Haggard)? Is it the guilt of your past that has led you to this abundantly more dangerous and despicable lifestyle? Oh by the way I just came all over your blog, do you have a towel?

Quote:

I know it's not easy to squeeze in a little time to think straight.

I can only imagine how hard that must be for you. At least you recognize your issues, even if you have to project them on to someone else for them to be out in the open. If you'd like I can escalate my personal insults to another level, all you have to do is follow the same format you've been following.

Your format:

1. Get beat up on by a girl that hasn't graduated college and makes money part time as a stripper

2. Project your flaws on to her.

3. Don't attack any of the arguments, simply launch a bullshit ad hominem tirade against your philosophical superior and hope that people aren't smart enough to see through you.

Keep it up, I promise you'll be even more pissed than you are right now. I wonder if I can write a nice piece about you that would show up as the first search result in google. I have a feeling I could. It would at least make for a fun challenge.

Yes--it's called formal debate, and it usually takes place between two or more intelligent, civilized persons of differing viewpoints. It's the preferred academic format for the rational discussion of ideas. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

We know plenty about it and we think it sucks and allows weak arguments to earn undeserved status, often due to the lack of knowldge on the part of the audience. That's how frauds like D'Souza garner so much public favor.

Quote:

Riiiight. I've listened to your shows, Brian--you don't do formal debate, because you aren't capable of doing formal debates. You proved that with your debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, which was just awful. The fact that you somehow managed to barely come out on top in that debate says less about your skill as a debater, and more about the total ineptitude of the Cameron/Comfort team.

THAT was a formal debate? ROFLMAO! If it was a formal debate, it would have ended about 5 minutes in when Ray brought up the Bible. A moderator would have just ended it because they violated the format.

Quote:

No, the RRS format is about getting unsuspecting apologists on your show, then ganging up on them in a profanity-laced rant, without ever letting them get a word in edge wise, then abruptly hanging up on them in a fit of rage, then declaring "victory". The reason that your format is this way is because you're completely incapable of defending your position in a rational and intelligent manner; you don't know a thing about history, theology, philosophy, or any other discipline you and your cronies pretend to be "experts" in. Instead, you employ school yard bully tactics to cover up your blinding ignorance, which force the reasonable person to just give up in frustration, at which point you brag about how you "pwned" them. That might be impressive to the unwashed pre-teen masses that make up the bulk of your membership, but serious thinkers--atheists and theists alike--are not impressed. That's why folks like Dinesh D'Souza don't bother with you, and I suspect that's why your organization has becomes somewhat of a running joke among other, more intelligent atheist.

Well, thank you, Dr. Freud. Apparently, you never listened to our discussion with Ergun Caner or Fr. Matthew or any of the other theists with whom we have had civil, polite, devoid of profanity discussions.

Quote:

Given the insulting nature of her responses to others that I've read, no doubt that Dinesh doesn't believe that Kelly's e mails warrant a response. Whether one agrees with them or not, at least Shermer, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are intelligent, civil, and reasonably respectful towards those of differing views, which is far more than anyone can say about you or Kelly.

I can see how you would make the leap that since I insult one person in one post that I must do that in all of my posts. Try reading them before you deem yourself Official Critic of the RRS.

Does she really strip? I am watching her now on YouTube "Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC" and she's pretty hot. I even believe that her hair color and breasts may be natural. Are they??

By the way, in my blog, I put all my personal information out there.

Anyway, I think Kelly is projecting all her bad stuff on me, so there, blah!!!

And it's a shame ABC did not put me on with you. I would have loved it! I'm serious. You guys are really lame.

But Kelly is seriously cute, if she doesn't mind my saying so.

So in twenty years she'll be lonely and have a cat. Whatever. Believe me I know what I'm talking about.

Atheism has been around at least since Socrates, so I have no illusions about it disappearing anytime soon. That being said, despite your unfounded enthusiasm that atheism is rapidly growing, atheism has never won widespread appeal, and never will. So what you say is true, at least in one sense: Atheism really isn't going anywhere.

The Saint

You really are amazing--you claim to be so vastly superior, but you've never even read any of Plato's Socratic dialogues? Socrates was not an atheist--in fact, he was more of a monotheist in that he worshipped Apollo as the head of the pantheon. He was executed for impiety, and part of that was his lack of worshipping other gods, part was lies made up by people who didn't like his "gadfly" routine. It's all in The Phaedo; you should try reading it. It's remarkably similar to what people do to us because they don't like us, either. Just make shit up.

As far as "unfounded enthusiasm", did you actually read any of the studies I presented?

You are the one with the closed mind and arrogant attitude. I am the one who will tell you that you can shove it up your ass.

You really are amazing--you claim to be so vastly superior, but you've never even read any of Plato's Socratic dialogues?

First of all, I never claimed to be "vastly superior" in any sense--can you point out where I've ever said such a thing? Second, I have read Plato, including his Apology, the defense of Socrates.

Quote:

Socrates was not an atheist

I never claimed Socrates was an atheist--I said atheism has existed at least since Socrates. Socrates was accused of atheism by Meletus, so we know that the concept of it has existed at least since his time. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Quote:

As far as "unfounded enthusiasm", did you actually read any of the studies I presented?

I've read the studies in which you misappropriate the demographics who claim no particular religious belief as being atheists, in order to pad your statistics.